Craig Allen Smith v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 13, 2006
Docket05-2756
StatusUnpublished

This text of Craig Allen Smith v. United States (Craig Allen Smith v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Craig Allen Smith v. United States, (8th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 05-2756 ___________

Craig Allen Smith, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * ___________

Submitted: May 30, 2006 Filed: June 13, 2006 ___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Craig Allen Smith appeals the district court’s1 order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for appointed counsel in his Federal Tort Claims Act suit. We hold that the order Smith challenges is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions) or § 1292 (granting appellate jurisdiction over specified interlocutory orders), or under the collateral order doctrine, see Kassuelke v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 223 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2000) (to qualify for immediate appeal under collateral order doctrine,

1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. order must conclusively decide disputed question that is important and distinct from case’s merits, and decision must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment); cf. Marler v. Adonis Health Prods., 997 F.2d 1141, 1142-43 (5th Cir. 1993) (declining to extend collateral order doctrine to immediate appeals of orders denying appointed counsel in products liability cases; in support stating, inter alia, that appellate court can effectively remedy effects of erroneous denial of counsel by vacating judgment and remanding for new trial with appointed counsel).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ______________________________

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Craig Allen Smith v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-allen-smith-v-united-states-ca8-2006.